EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF DESIGN REVIEW ON
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT:
SOME BOSTON EXAMPLES----1980-1990
By
Kou Chen Kao
Bachelor of Fine Arts
Chinese Culture University
1980
Master of Architecture
Ohio State University
1987
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
ARCHITECTURE
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE
OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
AT THE
OF TECHNOLOGY
INSTITUTE
MASSACHUSETTS
September, 1991
O
Frank
Kou Chen Kao,
1991
The author hereby grants to M.I.T. permission to reproduce and
to distribute publicly copies of this thesis document in whole
or in part
Signature of the authorKou Chen Kao
fArchitecture
July 27, 1991
Department
Certified
J.
Mark
Schuster
Associate Professor,
Department of Urban Study and Planning
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted
Gloria Schuck
Chairperson
Interdepartmental Degree Program
in Real Estate Development
SEP 00 1991
la NR~v
EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF DESIGN REVIEW ON
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT:
SOME BOSTON EXAMPLES----1980-1990
by
Kou Chen Kao
Submitted to the Department of Architecture
on July 31, 1991
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science in Real Estate Development
at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ABSTRACT
Experiencing growing concern over the quality of their local
environments, more and more communities are implementing Design
Reviews and other aesthetic control measures to safeguard their
built environments. Design Review is used not only to control
the physical appearance of existing buildings in historic
districts but also to control the proposed appearance of any new
construction. Since design review is now part of the permitting
process for most commercial development projects in some
communities, it creates an immediate impact on any development
and redevelopment activities.
The difficulties for developers are; (1) Design review through
its public process takes the judgement of aesthetic and control
(2) Design Review forces the
of outcome away from developers,
developers to change their traditional thinking patterns, and
(3) Design Review, if implemented improperly, will substantially
increase cost and time required for development projects.
This thesis, through interviews with developers, analyzes the
impacts created by Design Review on development activities and
possible strategies to reduce these impacts. The thesis
concludes that the impacts of Design review go beyond each
development project, and further affects the culture and
thinking of developers.
Thesis Supervisor: J. Mark Schuster
Associate Professor,
Title:
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
199
5INST.
SEP 0 1991
SEPs
r_~
Contents
Chapter I. Introduction....................................4
Chapter II. Design Review: The Growth, Nature, and Future of
Public Control Over Buildings .................... 13
The Background of Design Review............
The Focus of Design Review
in Small Communities....................
The Focus of Design Review
in Large Communities....................
The Future of Design Review................
......
14
.......
17
......
......
20
24
Chapter III. Evaluating the Impacts of Design Review
on Development Activites................... ......
28
Impact of Design Review on
the Architectural Quality of Development ......
Impact of Design Review on
Time and Costs of Development...... ...........
Impact of Design Review on
Development Profession............. ...........
Chapter IV. How Can Developers Deal Better with
design Review............... .....................
Strategy
Strategy
Strategy
Strategy
31
34
44
51
I........... .................
II.......... .................
III......... .................
IV ..........
..... ... .... ... ..o
Chapter V. Conclusion........................... ...
Bibiography....................
.......
63
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank those people,
especially Mr. David McGarry, Mr. Tom Owens,
Ms. Pamela Chicklis, Ms. Carole Pelletier, and
others, who have spent their precious time with
me. Without their assistance, this thesis would
not be possible.
I would also like to thank Ms. Babara
Whitesides for her effort to assist me in this
thesis.
I
Introduction
Experiencing growing concern over the quality of their
local environments, more and more communities are implementing
Design Reviews and other aesthetic control measures to
safeguard their built environments. Design Review is used not
only to control the physical appearance of existing buildings
in historic districts but also to control the proposed
appearance of any new construction. Design Review provides an
opportunity for residents to control and preserve their
community's character, civic environment, and property values.
Such a degree of control is generally not available under the
zoning ordinance and zoning variance system.
Since design review is now part of the permitting
process for most commercial development projects in some
communities, it creates an immediate impact on any development
and redevelopment activities. These activities are affected at
three different levels. The first level is the architectural
quality of the buildings. The second level includes the costs,
market timing, and duration of a project. The third level
includes the education and practice of development
professionals themselves.
Design review and aesthetic control is not a new
concept.[1]
In his era, Le Corbusier (1887-1965) once
complained about such a formal approach to establishing
communities:
"The spirit of France is not rule-bound except in
periods of lethargy and ossification. Today, when a new world
is surging up under the impulse of technical miracles, the
officials of the city of light apply regulation. And soon
there will be no lights in the city." [2]
While design review is a common practice in the United
States, the design review concept is generally an unfamiliar
one for most people. Collective thinking and common tastes
such as design review requires have never established a
stronghold in this country. The struggle to establish such.
concepts, especially the abstract notion of "aesthetic"
quality, has fueled tremendous debate and created chaos, since
judgements on aesthetics or design differ based not only on
each individual's taste but also on the knowledge and
experience of that individual.
To those who are unfamiliar with design review think
that design review is simply a process in which any proposed
use of materials, details, and colors on the facade of a
1. Although it is fair to say that it has been in exist longer
in Europe than the United States. John Punter, "A History of
Aesthetic Control: Part I, 1909-1953", Town Plan Review, Volume
57 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1986).
2. John J. Costonis, Icons and Aliens
Illinois Press, 1989), p. 114.
(Chicago:
University of
building must be presented to public scrutiny to prevent or to
mitigate any possible adverse impacts on the image of the
neighborhood and the overall image of the community.
However,
the scope of design review is often more complex than just the
surface and appearance of the building.
In many sizable
projects, design review also evaluates the internal
organization of the building, its use of space, and its
relationship with the surrounding urban area. In this paper,
the Definition of Design Review is: The process of proposing
design of any private development which has to go through
third party as well as public scrutiny in examining the
heights, massing, urban relationship with surrounding
buildings and area,
and architectural details as well as
detail in materials to obtain the permission to build.
The notion of design review does not go unchallenged.
There are heated debates over design review among legal
experts, designers, administrators, and community advocates.
Many have charged that design review deprives the individual
of his rights of free expression, invades the rights of
property owners, and increases the cost of new space.
Technical aspects of design review, such as the effectiveness
of design guidelines, the qualification of review board
members, and the efficiency of the process, have also been
strongly criticized. As John Costonis writes in Icons and
Aliens, quoting Robert Venturi: "Every community and state is
appointing its design review board to promote the
architectural revolution of the last generation, and corrupts
its members through rule-by-man rather than rule-by-law." [3]
Costonis and other critics even carry the argument one step
further by questioning not only the legitimacy of legally
regulating "aesthetics" but also the impact of such regulation
on our society's ability to innovate and progress in design
matters. Ironically, many opponents of design review are the
most creative and influential architects and designers of our
time, such as Kevin Lynch, Robert Venturi, Louis Sullivan, and
Le Corbusier.[4]
In this thesis, my purpose is neither to argue that
the public and the government should implement aesthetic
control measures, nor to judge the legitimacy or adequacy of
design review practice. Rather, through conducting interviews
with developers, I focus on the impacts of design review upon
real estate development activities and identify possible
strategies for dealing more wisely and efficiently with such
impacts. This research assumes that communities, responding to
their residents' wishes and facing the increasing reduction of
federal aid, will devote more energy to making their local
environment more attractive through design review in order to
protect their primary tax resource, namely, property.
3 Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown, and Steven
Learning from Las Vegas ( Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972),
4. Costonis, Icons and Aliens, pp. 111-116.
7
Izenour,
p. 148.
This research focuses mainly on the last ten years
(1980-1990) of development activities in Boston,
Massachusetts, and its surrounding area. Interviews with seven
developers and one public relations consultant are the
principal focus of my discussion. Boston's design review
processes have been well established in the last decade,
compared with those of most other communities. Because Boston
is likely to be taken as a model for study and imitation by
other communities, it become even more important to study
Boston cases.
Not all the philosophical arguments regarding design
reviews affect development activities. Although developers
possess some desire to be creative, their major focus is still
on their profit, as with any other regular business activity.
Traditionally, real estate development has been viewed as a
passive economic activity. Developers respond to projected
market demand by supplying various types of space. These new
spaces respond not only to the actual physical demands of
usage but also to economic conditions and to current taste.
Design review has changed this traditional pattern,
however. It makes developers more aware of the important tie
between their products and our environment.
Some developers
have come to realize that overemphasizing financial return and
fast delivery can mean that the long term aesthetic quality of
projects and its impact upon their surroundings are sometimes
overlooked.
Design review creates positive as well as negative
impacts on development activities. One positive impact can be
the improvement of a project's architectural quality and
consequently the enhancement of the image and living
environment of communities. Another is that through design
review's emphasis on the design quality and public process,
developers are made more sensitive to the local environment as
well as to the practice of their profession.
What are the negative impacts of design review? Design
review perceived by developers as to cause increases in costs
and time required for development and consequently affects the
affordability of space. While some reports have claimed that
design review does not substantially increase the costs of
projects, it is important to distinguish developer-initiated
projects from other projects before assessing the cost impact
of design review. If projects presented are fairly small, such
as residential projects, the cost will not increase too much.
However, most buildings which can be categorized as
development projects must have a certain minimum square
footage and volume in order to project financial feasibility.
The substantial amount of money and time required to
see these large projects through design review does not result
from the principle of design review, but rather from
deficiencies in implementing the technical aspects of the
design review. These technical aspects include (1) the
composition and qualifications of design review boards, (2)
the sometimes ambiguous design review guidelines, and (3) the
time span of completing the design review process. Often, any
sizable development project may attract an astonishing amount
of attention and interest from various groups. The time,
manpower, and energy spent on the administrative work of
preparing for these public hearings and subsequent follow-ups
translate into actual dollar costs. In some rare cases, the
costs and time of dealing with design review will be further
increased if design review is used as a tool for other
political purposes such as anti-growth, or personal or
professional disputes. In addition, the period required to go
through the review processes will affect the timing of
development projects' entering into the market's economic
cycles.
Majority of developers interviewed do not oppose the
idea of design review. They regard design review no
differently than zoning and other environmental regulations as
"part of doing business" or "just another precondition" of
one's conducting real estate development business. As long as
the return can justify the equity and cost invested,
development activities will continue. Two types of developers,
those who have design backgrounds and those who view
development as a very localized business activity seems to go
even further to endorse the idea of design reviews as "very
positive." However, even these developers are also often
troubled by the unnecessary time, energy, mounting cost, and
10
political maneuvers required as they perceived to deal with
the ambiguity, arbitrariness, and inefficiency of some design
reviews as well as by the often inadequate qualifications of
the design board members.
Despite these negative aspects and controversies, the
results of design review processes are generally perceived as
positive by the general public as well as by design
professionals. In one recent survey of architects, design
review received positive reactions. [5] Furthermore,
many
communities are gaining more experience and making more of an
effort to overcome the current shortcomings of design review
processes and to provide detailed guidelines. Other efforts
have also been launched to revamp zoning ordinances to assist
the goals of design review. These improvements of design
review will further strengthen the practice of design review
in our society.
This thesis is divided into three sections, which will
discuss, in turn, the growth of design review, its impacts
upon development activity, and four strategies for helping
developers deal more efficiently with design review.
5 J. Mark Davidson Schuster, Project Director, Design Review:
The View from the Architecture Profession (Cambridge: The Design
and Development Group, Department of Urban Studies and Planning,
MIT, AIA, and BSA, 1990).
Notes
1. In the remaining chapters, I rely primarily on
The
developers.
with
interviews
personal
information gathered in these interviewing need to
be interpreted with caution. Some developers, due
to their business or other considerations, may not
have fully disclose their opinions during the
interviews. Some developers have asked to keep
their identities anonymous.
2. Cost data measuring the impact of design review
is difficult to obtain for two reasons. The first
is due to the difficulty of comparing the
hypothetical cost of a project which is not built,
to the actual cost of the project, after it has
gained approval from design review. The second
reason for the difficulty is the cost impact is
defined differently by different people and giving
a number will be misleading.
II
Design Review: The Growth, Nature, and Future of
Public Aesthetic Control Over Buildings
The design review process allows for public aesthetic
control of the appearance of selected buildings under
consideration and of their relationship with their surrounding
area.[1] The purpose of design review is to maintain the
overall quality of the built environment and to enhance the
community's character and image. Proponents of design review
have tried to justify their position by emphasizing the
seemingly long existence of design review, citing such early
examples as Louis XIV's planning and building of Versailles in
the seventeenth century, and the popes' rebuilding of Rome in
the fifteenth century. [2] However,
it
is
most unlikely that
popes and monarchs exerted such control over planning while
allowing the public final say; they were bent on demonstrating
their own authority, power, and egos, not on inviting the
public to review their decisions. A more realistic genealogy
might argue that design review in this country was inspired by
the "City Beautiful" movement almost a century ago and was
first implemented through historic preservation in the early
part of this century.
The Background of Design Review
1. Some communities only require projects which exceed some
square footage to be process through design review. Some other
communities exempt single residential houses from design review.
2. Richard Bender and Todd Bressi, Design Review, A review of
Processes, Procedures, and Potential ( Berkeley: College of
Environmental Design, U.C. Berkeley, 1989),
13
The "City Beautiful" movement acted to rebuild the
urban fabric to achieve better living conditions in accordance
with the European community model and "to create beautiful
designs entirely harmonious with each other."[3]
The most
important legacy of the movement is the idea that the
community's image and quality are of interest to the general
public and that government should play a leading role in
establishing such an image. One thing noticeable is that the
movement later failed as monarchs did in the wheel of history
because it "brushed aside the resistance of a democratic
society to imposed solutions."[4]
Influenced by this
movement, the New York City Arts Commission was established in
1898 to oversee public development on city properties. In
1909, Washington, D.C.'s Commission of Fine Arts was created
to review not only architecture but also any art works
commissioned by the federal government. Later, this aesthetic
review requirement was extended to any architectural project
constructed in Washington, D.C.
Modern architecture, after four decades of practice
from the early 1940s to the late 1970s, also contributed to
the awareness of and growing demand for design review. Modern
architecture was criticized for threatening the overall
cultural image of communities and failing to create pleasant
3. Spiro Kostof, A History of Architecture
University Press, 1977), p. 671.
4.
(Kostof, p.
673.)
(New York: Cambridge
living experiences in a community. Boring and repetitive
rectangular glass and concrete buildings wewe erected in
cities, in suburban towns, in historical districts, and in the
middle of rural landscapes without much consideration beyond
the buildings' and occupants' mechanical functions. Often the
only concession made to the public was a single piece of
modern sculpture placed in the middle of a barren empty plaza.
Increasing numbers of people have become annoyed by
the fact that zoning ordinances and land use regulations offer
no measures to regulate the image and the appearance of their
communities. Residents have been left powerless to control the
impacts of modern buildings. Most communities have come to
realize that a coherent community image is essential to
maintaining property values and living quality. Property
values are of great concern because property is the largest
single investment item in many people's lives. The
architectural quality of any new construction in the
neighborhood will affect the value of property.[5] Living
quality is measured in part by the safety of our everyday
lives and by our peace of mind. Design review is intended to
safeguard these concerns by limiting the possibility of any
bad design. This conservative approach has, admittedly,
reduced the likelihood of creating great imperial designs,
5.
Paul K. Asabere, George Hachey, and Steven Grubaugh,
"Architecture, Historic Zoning, and the Values of Homes", Joural
of Real Estate Finance and Economics (Kluwer Academic Publisher,
1989.)
15
such as the ones monarchs and popes have sometimes wrought.
Society has shifted from "exploring" to "conserving,"
having
realized the negative consequences of some of its
explorations. Design reviews "bar us from doing what we want
while forcing us to do what we prefer to avoid."[6]
Design reviews supposedly do not consider land use,
density, and safety considerations, which are covered by
zoning ordinances and building codes. However, in some
communities, aesthetic control measures are integrated into
different parts of zoning, environmental control, or land use
regulations. These communities usually do not have separate
design review boards and depend on their planning boards to
carry the responsibility for design review or aesthetic
control. Increasing numbers of communities, however, have
totally separate guidelines and committees to conduct design
reviews. For development projects that exceed some certain
square footage, design review is automatically required as
part of the permitting process.
The practice of design review varies widely and design
review boards take different forms in different communities.
The names of design review bodies also vary. But whatever the
practices, the forms, and the names, their missions are
similar. In all cases, however, the scope of design review
always goes beyond scrutiny of the building itself.
6.
Costonis, Icons and Aliens. p. 77.
16
Design guidelines for development projects in large
communities are most commonly subject to negotiation on a
project-by-project basis, except in historic districts where
developments are under specific guidelines. In some'small
communities design guidelines are specified in great detail.
Other communities only have very general design requirements.
The Focus of Design Review for Development
in Small Communities
In most small communities, design review concerns
itself primarily with the context, relative heights, and
massing relationship between new construction and existing
surroundings. Secondary considerations cover the traditional
architectural details. The conflicts in design review usually
exist between the developer's ego and the defensive thinking
of local residents. This defensive thinking may not focus on
considerations about detail preferences but on the height, the
overall size, and contextual relationships. Many developers
think the larger the building,
the better the project.
Such
thinking may reflect ego, financial considerations, or no
reason at all. But communities prefer smaller buildings which
have been enriched with architectural details that respond to
the surroundings.
Some communities have very specific requirements for
the construction of new buildings or for alterations of
existing structures and have demanded that aesthetic control
over all new construction be based on the current particular
17
desired image. These communities are more interested in
seeking or preserving their unique identity.
The design guidelines of Nantucket, Massachusetts, for
example, clearly state their goal of ensuring "that all new
buildings are compatible with the buildings adjacent to them
and contribute to the overall harmony of the street"[7] in
its historic district, and "that new buildings are designed as
partners with the island, not its
conquerors"[8]
in
other
areas. The Nantucket guidelines clearly specify the desired
street edge, building setting, building bulk, building
massing, building height, the proportion of openings and their
rhythmic arrangements, roof slope, and building materials in
accordance with traditional construction, fence and chimney
heights.
In the architectural review guidelines for the center
district of Santa Fe, New Mexico, similar detailed
requirements are set forward. They ensure the contextual
harmony of all new buildings with older ones, by specifying
requirements for massing, scale, surface texture, construction
materials, and sunlight on exterior spaces. The community,
honoring its historical legacy, focuses unanimously on
maintaining the established order and eliminating the risk
7.
J. Christopher Lang,
Building with Nantucket in Mind,
Guidelines
for Protecting the
Historic Architecture and
Landscape of Nantucket Island, (Nantucket: Nantucket Historic
Commission, 1987), p. 7.
8. Lang, Building with Nantucket in Mind, p.8.
18
which may result from architectural innovations. The design
review processes in such communities are easier for developers
than review processes in less unified communities, if
developers do not become too ambitious.
Other communities that do not have an established
architectural tradition and historic fabric are struggling to
define a desired future image for themselves. These
communities are most often those where confusion reigns even
among the residents. When people coming from different regions
and cultural backgrounds seek a common direction for the
physical growth and identity of their local community, based
upon each individual's experience, chaos and ambiguity often
arise. Although design guidelines do exist in these
communities, they neither identify important architectural
characteristics nor explicitly address the question of desired
material and details. Only vague language is used to specify
material:
"durable,
have low maintenance,
be of the same or
higher quality as their surrounding developments";
color:
"of earthen hue".
[9] or
This vagueness can create
arbitrariness and inefficiency in the design review process.
The potential population growth and available land in these
communities often make them desired markets for development
activities. Yet, with uncertainty and inconsistency
surrounding their design review practices, a greater than
9. Design Review Standards, (City of Thousand Oak, California,
1980).
19
necessary burden is placed on developers during the process of
seeking approvals.
In either situation design reviews do not only focus
on buildings. Design review is "not so much with detailed
architectural design . .
. as with the general character and
quality of new developments." [10] Both the harmonious
contextual requirement of well-established communities and the
quest for identity in new communities place the focus of
design review practice beyond the surface of buildings.
The Focus of Design Review on Development
in Large Communities
The typical design review in large communities usually
makes more demands than that in small communities and have to
be considered with more wide-ranging criteria. These
additional criteria may be financial resources for government,
job opportunities for residents, and creation of local
amenities. These types of design review boards are generally
more sophisticated, board members are experienced
professionals, and their design guidelines are established on
a project-by-project basis, through negotiation specific to
each site. Because the design requirements are subject to
negotiation, they are left vague and unspecified for
10. Committee on Design, American Institute of Architects,
Design Review Book: A HandBook for Communities (Washington,
D.C.: AIA, 1974), p. 12.
20
bureaucrats and government planning officials to maneuver in
the negotiations.
Furthermore, because of the typical large size and
visibility of development projects in these communities, the
issues appearing in the design review process become more
complex and often go beyond the buildings and their
immediately adjacent areas. City officials sometimes do not
even understand the issues related to a particular site and
have to gain understanding through steadily working with
developers and their architects. Only then are they equipped
to decide whether to accept or reject a particular design. It
is therefore considered appropriate for design guidelines to
be site specific, however. The time required to conclude these
guidelines will then be under the mercy of the efficiency of
bureaucracy.
The Boston Redevelopment Authority
(BRA), one of
Boston's design review vechicles, will usually be involved in
a project early. Once all the project's issues are identified
and the proposed solutions are accepted, the BRA will "become
the supporter in the zoning approval process for
developers."[11]
This support by BRA helps to accelerate the
required zoning approval process and consequently balances the
time required in the shaping of design guidelines.
11 Interview with Mr. David McGarry, Vice President and Project
Manager of the 125 High Street project, Spaulding and Slye Co.,
June 7, 1991.
21
Boston, New York, and San Francisco all require
comprehensive design reviews. Yet for the 125 High Street
project in Boston, developers were never told what the design
guidelines were for the site. The developer was told only
"what is not a Boston building." In downtown San Francisco,
the restrictions upon large office tower growth are so great
that all proposals for such towers must compete in an annual
"beauty contest" which only results in the issuance of one or
two permits a year.
The focus of design review usually is on two very
distinct levels in these reviews. The first level addresses
the question of desirable height, which will affect the
skyline, and related considerations such as sunlight, shadows,
and wind effects upon the surrounding area. The second level
of focus is the pedestrian experience in the immediate
proximity of the project. The building's architectural details
become a minor concern compared with these two primary
concerns.
In San Francisco, new large buildings are required to
"create a visually distinctive roof or other termination of
building facade."[12]
Developers who have been through the
design review process in San Francisco and Boston all
acknowledge that building heights are always the first issue
to appear in the design review process.
12. San Francisco Review Committee, San Francisco Downtown Plan,
section 270(D).
"[In our interaction with design review], details and
materials of projects are not critical. More often the
focus is on the height of buildings and the massing of
the projects.
. . . In our 125 High Street project, we
were told to separate our main building into two towers
and to re-arrange them on our site in order to smooth
the image of massing and to control the shadow."[13]
The "experience of pedestrians," however,
is
a far
more complicated issue than simply the visual experience of
the details and materials of buildings.
This issue is
sometimes referred to vaguely as a question of "human scale"
and "community context."
Is the idea of "pedestrian
experience" too abstract? How can it
be evaluated?
The focus for the pedestrian experience is on the
exterior space, exterior display of signs, the building tower
setback, the ease of circulation around the neighborhood, and,
most important of all, the rhythmic arrangement of massing
and opening at the base of the building in relation to human
scale. Sometimes the lobbies of projects are included in the
consideration of "pedestrian experience." After all these
questions have been addressed, the focus will then shift to
the materials and building details.
"In
our
.
.
. design review,
.
.
. the focus was
narrowed down to six specific issues. These issues
included the entrance of the building, the height of
the building, the massing of the building .
. . very
little was mentioned about the physical details. Most
of the issues are related to the surrounding of
building."[14]
13.
David McGarry Interview.
14. Interview with Mr. Tom Owens, Senior Vice President of
Gerald D. Hines Interests Inc. and Project Manager of the 500
Boylston Street project, June 20, 1991.
23
"The focus on the human activity around the projects
seems more on the physical size of people . . .
[relative] to the size of the building."[15]
In light of all these practices, the focus of design
review is far more complex than the building materials,
building color, or landscape and architectural details. The
design review encompasses the surrounding urban design and
planning for the surrounding community. This extended scope of
design review can help the communities and planning officials
to re-examine their land-use control and establish more
comprehensive planning policies in order to achieve a better
living environment.
The Future of Design Review
As current design review practice continues to
supplement zoning ordinances in order to achieve a better
pedestrian experience and foster a desired community image
through controlling architectural details, building
orientations, and building scales, some design and planning
professionals are advocating the revamping of present zoning
ordinances. These designers and urban planners believe that
the most zoning's current overemphasis on automobile
circulation and forbiddance of mixed-use development forces
the attention away from considerations about the quality of
15.
Telephone interview with developer A, June 17,
24
1990.
the building and the pedestrian experience, which design
reviews have try to achieve.
These designers and planners, led by figures such as
Leon Krier, one of the most influential urban theorists, are
launching a campaign to persuade communities to establish
pedestrian-oriented zoning ordinances in order to create a
pedestrian-oriented "small town image." They argue that
because zoning has focused so much on the traffic and land-use
separation, it totally ignores people, their experience of
living inside communities, and the appearance of buildings.
Krier, in a recent interview with The New York Times, argues
that leisure, work, and domesticity, the "three basic tasks of
life" were separated by "automobile zoning." He resents modern
architecture's effect on community image and maintains that
the image of communities should be judged by "the comfort of
walking man". [16)
Such pedestrian-oriented land-use planning and
ordinances have gained tremendous attention and interest
throughout Europe, Asia, and North America. Some communities
have already been persuaded to revise their current vehicleoriented zoning ordinances into pedestrian-oriented zoning
ordinances.
"The life on the street has been sucked out and made
internal
16.
. . .
. The quality of our lives has been
The New York Times,
May 19,
25
1991,
p.
22.
eroded because we have overemphasized the automobile
and geared our zoning to the automobile."[17]
Three general ideas are set forth in such pedestrianoriented zoning ordinances. These ideas are intended to
achieve better living conditions and a better civil
environment for communities. The first idea is to allow higher
density and mix-used developments to generate constant and
frequent human activities. These high levels of pedestrian
activities will direct attention to the pedestrian experience
in communities as well as to architectural details. The second
idea embodied in pedestrian zoning ordinances is to conceal
the parking facilities and reduce the need for automobile
traffic. The traditional emphasis on automobile circulation
has allowed the wide road to cut into city blocks and disrupt
pedestrian activities. Allowing large parking lots close to a
building has distanced human activities from the continuity of
street edges. Empty parking lots during the night not only
reflect an undesirable image but also create safety concerns.
The third idea in these ordinances is that with the
concentration of small developments through higher density and
smaller lots, more open spaces can be preserved for
recreation. These open space can further increase the
desirability of communities.
Although there are doubts about whether such
pedestrian-oriented zoning ordinances will be fully adopted
17.
The Boston Globe,
June 22,
1991,
26
p.
31.
and implemented,
these ordinances undoubtedly echo the goals
of design reviews. With increasing focus and interest by local
communities on public aesthetic controls and the efficiency of
these controls, it is reasonable to assume that some of these
ideas will be adopted. These ideas will either be built into
current zoning or reflected in design review. In either case,
because a zoning variance or design review will still be
required in the permitting process for development projects,
aesthetic control will continue to exist and affect
development activities. Instead of spending energy in fighting
and arguing against such aesthetic controls, developers should
spend their energy focusing on how best to accommodate and
accommodate to the design review process.
27
III
Evaluating the Impacts of Design Review on
Development Activities
Because design review is often mandated for
development projects, its effects are often unavoidable.
Design review affects not only the architectural quality of a
given development but also other aspects of development
activities. The most noticeable impacts surface in three
different areas: architectural quality, cost and time
required, and the education and practice of developers.
The first area, architectural quality, is, of course,
the area design review focuses on directly. The majority of
developers interviewed for this paper believe that design
review has positively affected the architectural quality of
their projects and has made their projects look more
attractive.[1]
The second area affected by the design review process
is the cost of the projects and the time required to finish
them. Developers interviewed believe that dealing with design
review often increases the cost and duration of planning and
building. This area is by far the most significant from their
point of view. Other opinions also exist. Some people believe
that because of design review's organized process,
the time
required for reviewing development proposals will be
controlled and will consequently reduce the cost for
1. Five out of seven developers interviewed believe design
review improves the architectural quality. The other two
developers considered their projects have good quality and
design review does not help to improve their projects.
28
developers, however. Because the constantly deficient
technical implementations of design review, such benefit has
not yet been seen.
The actual additional costs and time associated with
design review still remain largely unknown and very difficult
to estimate. One attempt has assessed the average additional
cost associated with design review as ranging from 1.3% of the
total project cost in residential project to 2.9% in
commercial projects, [2] however.
These numbers seems
unconvincing for two reasons. The first is that this report
does not include the loss of potential cash flow and the
additional administrative costs based on the additional time
required to survive design review. The second is that it is
virtually impossible to compare the actual total cost of a
project after it has been approved by design review and been
physically built to the hypothetical cost estimate of the
project that would have been built.
From the developer's point of view, the total cost
impact of design review includes the additional time required
to deal with the review process, the additional administrative
work required, and the additional consultants necessary for
dealing with the process. Furthermore, the increasing
"opportunity cost" stemming from uncertainty about obtaining
approvals and the loss of potential cash flow due to the time
2. Rick W. Williams, Report on Design Committees,
California, Berkeley: Master Thesis, 1990).
29
(University of
needed to deal with design review are also considered by
developers as "cost." Delays resulting from addressing the
technical aspects of design review are considered cost as
well. The higher cost associated with design review will
sometimes affects the feasibility of projects and will only be
realized after substantial time and money have been spent on
due diligence and architectural studies. In some cases, design
review is used not to ensure good design but to prevent all
development, that is, it serves political purposes such as
anti-growth or community power struggles. In these situations,
the effects go beyond just the added costs and time for
projects.
The third area affected by design review is not the
projects themselves but developers and development activity as
a whole. Design review forces the change of developers'
thinking and practice. Developers have been made more
sensitive to the local environment, more willing to listen to
community concerns, and more able to focus on the design
quality of their projects which was not required in the
previous business and social environments. Especially in the
1980's, many profit seekers were attracted by the tax bebefits
in real estate and become the participants in development
activity. Design review has also promoted public and academic
interest in studying the relationship between development
activities and society.
30
The Impact of Design Review on the Architectural Quality of
Development
To many people, the matter of architectural quality is
a matter of personal taste and personal choice. Judgments
about architectural quality may be based on factors such as
the popularity of a given architectural style, the uniqueness
of a building, and the relative harmony between a building and
its environment. Can a person who appreciates modern paintings
and Le Corbusier's or Mies van der Rohe's modern buildings be
accused of bad taste and trying to promote design or art of
bad quality? When Post-Modern buildings first appeared, wasn't
there an uproar against their aesthetic and architectural
qualities and arguments that such buildings should not appear
outside of Disney World? Widely divergent opinions still exist
on the 1985 glass pyramid designed by I.M.Pei and erected in
the middle of the courtyard of the Louvre.
Should architectural quality be judged only by roof
shapes, materials, window treatments, colors, or column types?
Or should it be judged by the concepts that influence the
architect's thinking? Many design review requirements and
procedures, instead of setting up very specific and rigid
guidelines, choose to have some flexibility. In a city like
Boston, this kind of flexibility creates an opportunity for
dialogue among developers, architects, city officials, and
residents to set up a shared realm for judgement about
"aesthetic" and "architectural quality."
Developers entrust the matter of architectural quality
to the hands of their aesthetic and design experts, namely,
the architects, urban planners, and, perhaps, the engineers.
There are situations when some developers, wary of the initial
costs or just looking for easy financial returns in a hopedfor economic upswing, choose to neglect the aesthetic part of
their projects. By not being willing to provide reasonable
funds for design, these developers either prevent their
architects from doing a thorough design job, or are unwilling
to hire good architects at all. In extreme cases, some
developers hire engineers to do the architectural design.
Although this practice is allowed by many codes, it means that
the aesthetic and architectural quality of projects may be
overlooked. Design review, through intervening between
developers and the final aesthetic judgment of projects, has
corrected these kinds of inadequacies. However, not all
developers overlook the architectural quality of their
projects. There are many developers who devote their energy to
working with their architects in order to produce good and
beautiful buildings. In some cases, better architectural
quality can come through developers' and their architects'
initiatives and suggestions, not just from the review boards
or regulatory entities. Boston's Rowes Wharf which been
through some kind of design review is the best example of such
a situation.
Rowes Wharf (completed in 1987) is a mixed-use project
of almost 1.5 million square feet of hotel, retail, office
space and condominiums located at the edge of the harbor in
downcown Boston. Because the project was ground-leased on
city-owned land and because the size of the project is
substantial, the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), imposed
very strict design guidelines prior to the competition for the
project. These guidelines gave special attention to preserving
architectural quality as well as the view from the city to the
water. Based on these guidelines, the main portion of the
project was to be separated into two buildings with a
passageway to the water in between.
After the project team of The Beacon Company, the
developer, and Skidmore Owings and Merrill (SOM), the
architect, won the competition for the project, they were
asked to lower the height of the buildings but still to keep
the two buildings separated. In response to these requests,
the development team then convinced the BRA to allow the
creation of an arch gateway not only to link the two buildings
into one building but also to create a better pedestrian
experience through the project. This move initiated by the
development team enhanced the project's architectural quality,
making it
much more visually attractive. [3]
3. Presentation made by Mr. Tim Baker, President of Beacon
Construction Company, in Nov. 1990. and presentation made by Ms.
Carol Gladstone, Project Manarger of Rowes Wharf, in Feb. 1991
at the MIT Center for Real Estate Development.
33
Although developers consider dealing with design
review a very frustrating and time-consuming experience, some
developers speak positively about the architectural quality of
their projects after such review:
" Generally, I have positive feelings about design
review.
.
.
.By and large, they [comments and
suggestions from design review board] are helpful. I am
proud of, especially, the appearance and pedestrian
level view of our project. .
.and
that is very much
influenced by the design review board."[4]
(Boston)
"It was a very painful experience but some good things
did come out of it.
. .
. There are certain things done
in the design review process that made the project a
better project."[5] (Boston)
"Design review does help to make the appearance of a
project more attractive."[6] (San Francisco)
Although they raise further questions and offer some
negative comments on the matter of personal tastes, the roles
played by their architects in judging quality, and the
requirement of unnecessary details, five out of the seven
developers interviewed, for this paper believe that design
review, from their perspective, did improve the architectural
quality of their buildings.
Impacts of Design Review on Time and Costs of Development
The added costs and time attributable to design review
make by far the largest impact on development projects from
4.
David McGarry interview.
5.
Tom Owens Interview.
6.
Interview with developer B. June 13, 1991.
34
the developer's point of view. The actual amount of cost added
is still ill-defined because the "cost" does not merely mean
the actual dollar amount which the developer pays for actions
required in order to deal with design review. It also includes
the time needed to accommodate the required public processes
and the changes resulting from the review. One developer
refers to the costs of design review by saying,
and time is money."[7]
"It
is
time
Another suggests that the term "cost"
includes potential cash flow and opportunity cost by saying,
"We were forced to cut down some square feet to accommodate
design changes,
. . . $25 per square foot
at a 10% rate, and it is several
plus
$2
million
million
[rent per year] cap
dollars already
for additional work."[8]
The cost estimation by developers embraces two
different levels. One is the direct cost from the necessary
expenses of dealing directly with the design review. The other
is the indirect costs resulting from the requirement to
satisfy design review
specifications. These indirect costs
include all differences between the project's 'built-as-right'
and 'built-as-design-required' and potential cash flow which
are impossible to be calculated.
Developers from time to time join the opponents of
design review in charging it with invading the rights of
property owners and the rights of free expression. Developers
7.
Interview with Mr. David McGarry.
8. Interview with developer A.
35
have also expressed concern over the issue of creativity and
the justice, not to mention efficiency, of ensuring democracy
in the review process at the developer's expense. However, the
underlying fact is that these charges are used to legitimize
their frustrations about another layer of uncertainty, the
added costs, and time required to deal with the design review.
Beyond the cost directly associated with design review, the
public process also increases the time and cost for
developers. The administrative work needed to respond to
different interest groups and the time needed to negotiate and
find compromises among the different groups all constitute
part of the expense. Design review also increases the time
required, through its lengthy processes and the most often
ambiguities of design guidelines. Delays will not only affect
the market timing of projects and their interactions with
fluctuating economic cycles, but can trigger unexpected cost
escalation, such as wage increases, material cost increases,
and inflation.
Other factors also contribute to the impacts of design
review on development. Most important is the prejudice against
development or construction activity as the sole source of all
unattractive changes in our built environment. This attitude
is clearly illustrated in some design guidelines. The Beverly
Hills, California, document states that "there is a tendency
of some owners and developers to disregard beauty and quality
36
in construction."[9]
In the guide to design review for
Nantucket, Massachusetts, similar but more moderate language
is used:
"when property owners build only with concern for
their own inspiration and advantage,
structure that does not belong. . .
and result often is
a
image of the
[to the]
island and hence diminishes Nantucket's attractiveness and
unity."[lo]
As one developer put it,
thirty years
"Twenty,
ago, when everybody was enthusiastic about modernization, they
praised and embraced the glass boxes of modern architecture.
Today, in design review. .
. . everyone thinks developers
should take full responsibility for these buildings' adverse
impacts on their communities. .
. .even though most of these
buildings were not done by developers."[11]
One prominent
architect, Charles Gwathmey, made a similar assertion about
such attitudes emerging in design review board members. He
charged that any new building presented before a design review
board is presumed guilty of worsening the neighborhood and
surrounding buildings unless proven otherwise. Because of
these widespread attitudes, there is a tendency for design
review to make excessive demands on development projects and
consequently to have more of an impact on developments than it
might otherwise have.
9.
Municipal Code, Beverly Hill, California.
10.
Lang,
Building with Nantucket in Mind,
11.
Interview with developer C, June 7, 1991.
37
p.
3.
There are many different types of developers. Many of
them are very conscious about the built environments and
devoting their energy and efforts in creating a better living
environment. There are maybe some involvement of personal ego
and taste in the development projects, however, communities
should not prejudicedly deny the effort of these developers.
While many developers believe design review does help
the appearance of buildings and enhances the image of
communities, they are all concerned about the cost impacts of
requirements for materials and detail levels on their
projects. Most development projects are sizable and
complicated and additional requirements for high levels of
detail or specific materials will certainly force significant
labor and cost increases.
"The increased costs that design review can add to a
project are substantial
.
.
.
.
By going through many
levels of design reviews, you have increased costs not
only for the time you spend but also on the
articulations . .
. people appreciate good details, but
you pay for studying these details and construction of
[these]
details. [12]
In many cases, design review also requires that developers
modify their projects to address the concerns of interest
groups or neighborhood groups. The energy and time required to
handle this process translates into actual dollar costs.
"For two years, every other Wednesday night, we had
meetings with interest groups .
. .
. all your
consultants must be present and you must have three
12.
Interview with Mr.
David McGarry.
38
studies
of projects
.
.
.
.
you pay for those
consultants and studies."[13]
Concerned interest groups and individuals may number
from fewer than a dozen to hundreds, may come from near and
far, and each one will have its own focus. In both the 125
High Street and the 90 Tremont Street projects , the number of
these groups and individuals exceeded 100.[14]
Although is
fair to say that design review organizes these interest groups
and individuals to avoid endless one on one negotiation
between developer and these astonishing numbers of group and
individual whom otherwise will appear in different stages of
permitting process. The question is that the how can a
subjective issue as personal taste and a technical issue as
architectural quality be negotiated and decided through this
open process and, at the same time, be efficient?
Many people involve themselves in the public review
process with legitimate concerns and to improve development
projects. However, some come into the design review just to
stop a project. Some others may come to turn the supposed
technical processes of design review into a political arena.
Whatever the purpose is, the time of the process will be
prolonged and the added cost resulting from this extra time
will be borne by the developers and the subsequent tenants.
Even though the results may receive popular support, the
13.
Interview with Mr.
Tom Owens.
14. Number provided by the project managers
during the interviews given in June, 1991.
39
of both projects
developer may still face legal action taken by a minority of
the interest groups, using all kinds of excuses. Although the
outcome may favor the developers, the prolonged process will
add even more time and costs.
In the first phase of 500 Boylston Street one of the
original nine members of the "Neighborhood Advisory Committee"
sued the city of Boston and the developer,
after the eight
other members had approved the project, arguing that the city
had no right to approve the project and issue the building
permit. The developer won the case in both the lower court and
the court of appeal. But meeting such legal challenges can be
very costly for the developer.
In well-established or large communities, design
review boards are likely to be composed of experienced and
credible members who are supported by well-trained,
full-time
professional staffs. These boards are more likely to know how
to conduct sound design reviews. However, most small
communities, under budget constraints, can neither provide
good professional staffs nor attract experienced or qualified
board members. The effectiveness of design reviews in these
communities then becomes a question. Design guidelines are
seldom presented or illustrated in a clear and understandable
fashion.
In
some cases,
this ambiguity results from a
community's other considerations
such as jobs,
infrastructure,
and the local economy so that the city wants to have some
flexibility in policy making. In other caseses, the ambiguity
40
resulted from the inability of community to define their goals
in regarding design review. However, this kind of ambiguity is
not only misleading and confusing, it also affects the
fairness of design reviews. Although most design review
processes are mandated to be completed by a certain time
period, those time limits are seldom observed for development
projects because most development projects are complicated and
the ability of design review boards is limited. Developers are
often forced to choose between more time for further study by
review boards and the rejection of their projects. All these
delays will add costs and time to a project.
The most disturbing situation for developers occurs when
design review is used to serve either a political purpose or a
personal purpose. In many communities, members of review
boards are political appointees. This kind of appointing
system may sometimes include un-qualify person into the design
review boards and consequently affect the fairness of
implementing the design review. In many cases, developers,
after spending much time and money,
come to realize that the
true purpose of a design review is anti-growth. Developers may
also be caught in the middle of political struggles or
personal or professional disputes. The first situation,
because of the possible legal consequences, will act in such a
way that design review will require extremely high levels of
detail or will prolong the process of design review to make
the development activities economically impossible. However,
41
most developers only discover the truth of the situation after
much time and money have been invested in the planning and
design of their projects.
One such example was mentioned in an interview with a
developer. The developer abandoned his residential project
which involves 40 lots after his proposal was "rejected four
times in
design review and had become financially infeasible."
He strongly believes that the reason is because "the neighbors
have conceptually included those empty lots as their
properties and can make their houses look more attractive when
they are remain empty" and "the review board yield to those
people politically." [15]
The latter situation can be seen in two Boston
projects, 500 Boylston Street(II phase is schedule to be
complited in
1991)
and International Place
(II
phase is
schedule to be completed in 1992) Both projects involved
conflicts between the Boston Society of Architects and famed
Philip Johnson. As a result, Philip Johnson was replaced after
the completion of first phase of both projects. Many people in
the industry comment on these incidents as "purely political,"
illustrating "the inadequacy of political conflicts involved
in a process which should not have such struggles."[16]
In
such cases, developers not pay the additional fee for the
redesign of the projects but also the added time for the
15.
Interview with developer A.
16.
Interview with developer D, June 1991.
42
struggle. However, for these two projects, the consequences
may go beyond merely doubling the architectural fee. The 500
Boylston Street project was delayed two years and
International Place was delayed three years, in the estimate
of their developers, and both were hard hit by the economic
downturn. If there had been no delay, the projects might have
come into the market two to three years earlier. Such timing
would have helped the developers of both projects to lease
their space, and would have reduced the economic impact
resulting from the current recession.
Some people have claimed that if the phase II of both
projects were built according to the original proposal, there
will be a cost for society to pay. I personally agree this
argument in the case of International Place but strongly
disagree in the 500 Boylston case. Why did these projects
receive approval in the first beginning, if they are so
undesired, and where does the fine line being drawn by
communities in such cases?
As the current recession(1989-?) demonstrates, cost as
well as time are important for developers and their projects.
The impacts of added cost and time by the design review
process on development can be significant if design review are
not implemented adequately. In a well established design
review practice like Boston, such ill implementation of design
review exist, think about how inadequate they can be handled
in other communities. Although the responsibility of
inadequate implementation of design review although is in the
hand of review boards and communities, but developers end up
paying the price.
Impact of Design Review on the Development Profession
Through its emphasis on the quality of the built
environment, design review also impacts the practice of
development and the thinking of developers. It prompts
academic study of the relationship between development
activities and the quality of the environment, and affects the
education of developers. It eliminates some of the
participants who "do not like the idea of design review" and
who are "marginal developers". [17] Due to the impact of
design review, many developers are now required to be more
sensitive to the overall local environment, to put more focus
on the design of their projects, and to improve their
profession's interactions with society. An increasing number
of academic institutions, concerned about our built
environment and endeavoring to set up more scientific study of
development activities, have established academic real estate
development programs that include education in design. These
programs will contribute in a more fundamental way to the
shaping of development and its participants in the future.
Development activity, because of its unique multidisciplined character,
17.
complicated interactions with different
Interview with developer B.
44
industries, and hands-on building work, has never been
established as a single comprehensive science or academic
discipline. Traditionally, developers are people who have been
trained in any one of several different disciplines and
gradually, through their participation in projects, acquired
the additional necessary skills. These disciplines may include
law, business, construction, political science, engineering,
and architecture. Some developers may have been trained in
more than one discipline. Other people simply take the
opportunity presented by an economic upturn to participate
periodically in the development business. Since development is
considered a business activity, there is a tendency for some
developers to focus more on the economic and financial sides
of their projects. Less attention is paid to the design side
and the consequent environmental impacts. Construction,
another aspect of development, is above all a matter of public
safety, and building codes ensure necessary standards are met
in all realm.
Most developers do not have any training in design and
aesthetics. Because of this lack, they often ignore the
impacts their projects and activities have upon the
environment. Design review forces developers to pay more
attention to architectural and neighborhood considerations. It
helps to achieve a good balance among the internal
considerations of projects and between them and the
development's overall purpose.
In
45
other words,
design is
no
longer a subordinate consideration used only when developers
want to express their ego or achieve better financial returns,
and civic environmental concerns are no longer only moral
issues which some may choose to neglect.
Knowing that the lack of a proper design will prevent
one from surviving design review, developers are now more
aware of architectural quality and more sensitive to
preserving the environmental quality of communities.
Developers are also making more effort to balance the
financial and design considerations of a project:
"If
I am to build another building .
.
. I will want
the architect to design the building in scale and in
context with the environment . .
. .
[Design review]
makes me want to balance the design side of the project
and the economic component of a project."[18]
"[Design review] . . . has somehow made me more
sensitive to the local environment. . . . Although
[this environment] may partially include the political
environment
. . . impact on physical environment and
the image of architectural design have become major
considerations for us."[19]
Because of design review's public process, developers
are also trying to reach out to communities and include
communities' concerns in their development plans. This can be
demonstrated by the increasing involvement of public relations
consultants in the design review process. These consultants
are involved not only in the design review of new developments
but also in the design approval process of facade
18.
Interview with Mr. David McGarry.
19.
Interview with developer B, June 13, 1991.
46
rehabilitation and signage. Typically, these consultants first
help the developers to identify possible interest groups and
set up early opportunities for communication with design
review boards, neighborhood groups, and other interest groups.
They then assist developers in setting up project criteria and
handling the concerns of the communities throughout most of
the review process. Sometimes they are brought in to handle
the non-technical problems and issues that arise during the
construction phase of the development process. The public
relation consultants also communicate communities concern back
to the developers.
One such consulting firm in Boston is McDermott/
O'Neil & Associates. This office has involved itself in the
design processes of many well-known and large-scale
development projects, mainly in Boston. McDermott/O'Neill &
Associates merged two firms together in 1990. One was Baystate
Investors, a firm that specialized in government relation
services; the other was the Northeast Management & Marketing
Company, a marketing firm which had been in the real estate
public relation business prior the merging. Carole Pelletier,
an associate of the firm, referred to their involvement in
development activity as "working with developers in Boston
.
. and managing community out-reach processes for development
projects."[20)
She further described the firm's involvement
20.
Interview
with
Ms,
Carole
Pelletier,
McDermott/O'Neill & Associates, June 15, 1991.
47
Associate,
in design review processes: "What we are trying to do is to
help our clients [developers] to understand the planning
contexts and planning policies;" "We add value [to the
development team]
. .
. because we do understand the mind set,
the procedures, the process, and the policy of current
planning and design environments. So, we can help developers
with that kind of understanding."[21]
This The actual
effectiveness of such consultants in the design review process
may be hard to assess and the number of such consultants is
unknown. However, this new professional area for public
relations firms reflects the growing awareness of developers
of the importance of the relationship between their projects
and communities.
Other more fundamental approaches have also been
introduced. In order to study development activity and to
promote awareness of the relationship between development and
the environment-at-large, many schools have established real
estate programs alongside their regular business
curricula. [22] First M.I.T.,
and then Columbia University,
the University of California at Berkeley, and the University
of Southern California pioneered such programs. Although some
of these programs focus on real estate from a business or
urban economic point of view and have integrated the study of
21.
Interview with Ms.
22.
Directory to
Institute, 1990.
Carole Pelletier.
Real
Estate
48
Related
Program,
Land
Use
real estate with other established disciplines, many have
emphasized the practical field implementations and promote
aesthetic and social awareness. As stated in the introduction
of the M.I.T. Real Estate Master's degree brochure, "[Real
estate development]
. . . creates special places to enhance
everyday life and invents structures 'that symbolize our
culture
.
. .
. Those who develop real estate carry a moral
and aesthetic responsibility .
. . and must address .
.
.
impacts on the local environment." The brochure further states
that "the nature and complexity of development decisions have
blurred the distinction between public and private." [23]
In many real estate development academic programs,
design is one of the required courses, along with finance,
economics, and construction in the course curricula. This
design course allows these future developers not only to
develop some aesthetic knowledge but also to increase their
awareness of the possible impact of design on the urban
environment. With more and more graduates of these programs
participating in development activities, the hope of
universities is that considerations of architecture quality,
living quality and environmental issues will be promoted and
balanced with other aspects of development.
In recent days, an increasing number of institutions
and corporations, as part of their desire to decentralize and
23.
Brochure of the Master of Science in Real Estate
Development, (Cambridge: Center for Real Estate Development,
MIT), p. 2 .
49
out-source the construction of new facilities, are hiring
developers to assist with the planning and construction of new
buildings. The efficiency demonstrated by developers in
passing all required permitting processes, including design
review, will affect the survival of developers. The same
demand for efficiency will also come from financial lenders
and investors backing developers.
The developer is the leader of a project team whose
decisions influence and contribute to the shaping of our
society's environment. He or she needs to be more aware of the
consequences of his or her practice and projects. The impact
of design review on the culture of developers is more positive
and encouraging than its impact on the costs and time.
IV
How Can Developers Deal Better with Design Review ?
"Finance alone will not make the project work in the
future .
.
. the efficiency in moving along the process
will be among the primary considerations for
development."
For developers, major decisions about how to reduce
the cost and required time in dealing with the process of
design review should serve the goal of efficiency. This may
required that developers to change their thinking and practice
and become more sensitive to the communities. After the boom
of the 1980s and the recent banking crisis, the efficiency of
developers to complete a project will be a major factor
affecting their ability to raise financial support. As a
principal of one of the largest U.S. real estate investment/
development firms concludes:
project work in the future
"Finance alone will not make the
. .
. efficiency in moving along
the process will be among the primary considerations for
development."[1]
Decisions made about how best to deal with design
review will mostly depend on the attitudes of developers in
conducting their business. Recognizing that, ideally,
development activities are part of collective efforts to
create a better and more attractive built environment,
developers should position themselves on the same side of the
negotiating table with communities. Although the outcome of
1. Presentation made at the MIT Center for Real Estate
Development by a principle of a large investment/development
firm. April, 1991.
51
design review may be controlled by external factors and the
mechanical aspects of the process are often unpredictable, a
good track record of being actively involved in shaping a
better environment will eventually help developers to mitigate
the uncertainty of design review.
Through my conversations with seven developers and
through analysis of their projects, four strategies emerge as
being important to developers in dealing with design review:
(1) Clearly understand the nature and goal of the design
review practice in a given locality;
(2) Set up early
interaction and communication with design review boards and
powerful interest groups to establish clearer guidelines and
criteria;
(3) Learn to be a local developer, by becoming more
actively involved with community activities; and (4) Carefully
select members of a well-balanced project team, including
public relations consultants, to help handle all forseeable
issues for each project.
Arguments for these four strategies follow:
Strategy 1: Clearly understand the nature and goal of the
design review practice in a given locality.
Every community has its own goals for design review,
although these goals may not at first be easily
identified.
Developers must bear in mind that they are not only engaging
in business but also helping the community to achieve its goal
of obtaining better living conditions and a better
environment. The relationship between development and the
52
community is
more than a matter of demand and supply. By
faithfully providing more attractive products in
line with
what the community wishes and thus enhancing the community's
image, developers can also share the benefit of conducting
more efficient business. Based upon the interviews undertaken
for this paper, developers seem to be less successful in
persuading communities to accept their own aesthetic
judgements than in allowing communities to see their aesthetic
taste expressed in proposed projects.
The posture adopted by most communities during design
review is to reject projects they do not want to see built
instead of specifying or encouraging what they do want built.
This passive approach keeps the initiative in the hands of
developers' and their architects. Yet, many developers also
approach design review passively, wishing that the language in
the design guidelines might somehow help them in their desire
to conduct business. These developers often find more
frustration and disappointment than those who actively seek,
through their business, to create a better environment for the
community. Communities, on the other hand, should also
recognize that they have resposibility to make efforts to
improve the civic environment by providing help to developers
not just merely in the position of trying to regulate such
efforts. It is true that the investors behind developers often
force developers to focus on financial return. But more
understanding of the goal of design review, pose some training
in design, and a more proactive approach may help projects to
go through design review more effectively and consequently
reduce their costs and risk.
The community may also take note of differences among
developers. Whether this is fair or not, the fact is that some
developers do bring unattractive projects into communities.
The track records of different developers may be judged
differently according to different considerations. However,
for the communities' concerns, more focus is on the track
record of architectural quality of a developer's projects. If
a community uses design review as a tool for anti-growth or
growth control, developers must fully recognize that fact
prior to planning their projects and anticipate the
consequences of engaging themselves with that community, which
may include legal action.
The technical aspects of design review remain very
difficult ones for developers to deal with. However, through
understanding and recognizing the goals of the local design
review, the impacts of ill implementation of technical aspects
of the process may be reduced.
Developers should pose the following questions to
themselves to understand the nature of their own projects
ahead of time:
(1) What can we do through this project to make
the community better and more attractive?
(2) What kind of
projects and what kind of designs is this community likely to
reject?
(3) What kind of projects and designs does this
54
communities prefer?
(4) How are these considerations met by my
project and how .can I compromise to balance the community's
wishes with my own plans? When a developer makes the
community's concerns his or hers, and is fully aware of all
forseeable effects of the project, the reputation of
developers as a whole will improve.
Strategy 2: Set up early interaction and communication with
design review boards and powerful interest groups to establish
clearer guidelines and criteria.
In many cases, developers approach communities,
planning officials, and design review boards in order to set
up criteria and learn about community concerns before the
design or project planning process is underway. The developer
of Boston's 125 High Street site believes that his project
took less time compared with other similarly-sized projects
because of early communication with the BRA to "form what
guidelines we should follow . . . and to avoid or to reduce
the ambiguity which may surface later on."
The developer
explains further : "We have contacted and met hundreds of
groups which we think may have an interest in the project
before and during the project."[2] Another developer claimed
that the first
thing he will do in his next project is
and start doing some listening . .
2.
.
. try to figure
after the "high price
Interview with David McGarry.
55
in
. talk to different
interest groups, talk to city officials .
out what the rules are,"
"Go
[he paid]
for
not listening."[3]
Such early communication will not only
allow developers to understand the local environment and the
community's agenda, but will also help guide the architect who
initiates the design.
Developers sometimes find themselves caught in the
struggle between the creative ego of their architects and the
community, which does not want such an ego. Some architects,
on the other hand, have claimed that they are caugh between
the struggle of developers and communities. There are some
architects lack the insight to understand the dynamic
relationship in the public design process. Their notion of the
best design may not harmonize with the context of the local
community.
As one developer put it,
"the architects know
nothing about what the communities really want.
[just how] to express themselves."[4]
Yet,
. .
. but
developers,
because of their lack of aesthetic training, may feel they
have to rely totally on the architect's aesthetic and design
judgments. The least favorite international architecture today
is the creation of architects. An extreme example is
Deconstructionist Architecture, which fragmented the building
as well as its materials in an exaggerated fashion. That
fashion was surely not the creation of developers. Another
major reason for the opposition of communities to architects
may be the lack of communication between developers and
3.
Interview with developer D, June 4, 1991.
4.
Inteview with developer B, June 13, 1991.
56
communities as a whole before the initiation of projects.
Architects and developers sometimes equate their own aesthetic
criteria with property rights. Yet their criteria may conflict
with the aesthetic criteria of the local community.
Developers should act as a coordinator for all the
criteria regarding the project, including design criteria.
This role requires careful planning and the early
establishment of design guidelines before the project.
Developers or architects can no longer afford to just set up
design criteria by themselves without input from the
community. One public relations consultant suggests developers
"sit down with certain people first, get guidance early, and
integrate it
into the design process."[5]
Developers have to
further understand the consequences of these criteria for the
cost of their project. Developers should then set up the list
of design priorities to be addressed in their proposals. "If
there are different issues, what is
the priority of these
issues and the cost associated with them? Where is our
negotiating room? . .
can be negotiated."[6]
. [we should] understand which points
Such planning is
especially important
in communities where design guidelines are not clearly set
forth.
5.
Interview with Ms. Carole Pelletier.
6.
Interview with ms. Carole Pelletier.
57
Strategy 3: Learn to be a good local developer by becoming
more actively involved with community activities.
A local development team with a local architect seems
to encounter less opposition than a development team composed
of outsiders. This difference may be due to the unavoidable
distinction between developers who know the community image
well and have a known track record, and outside developers who
are attracted to the community by its economic or population
growth.
There are generally four general kinds of developers.
The first kind is locally known and often has established his
or her practice over a long period of time and those who want
to engage in development for more than financial rewards.
These developers are usually very conscious of the concerns of
local communities and their reputation. The second kind of
developer is a nationally-known outsider who develops projects
according to the rotating economic cycles in different
regions. Such "outsider" developers are also very concerned
about the quality of their projects and their reputation
because of their high level of exposure nationally. However,
these developers sometimes are distrusted by local
communities.
The third kind of developer is the syndicator or oneshot developer who periodically surfaced during the economic
growth in the late 1970s and '80s. A real estate syndication
is formed on a project-by-project basis and most often focuses
purely on the financial return for investors. Since the
58
syndicator's intention is usually to make as much profit as
possible in
a short period of time and sell the building
whenever the price is
good, the negative impact his or her
project can have on a community is by far most severe. The
fourth kind of developers are those who were attracted by the
high profit and financial rewards benefits in the real estate
development activity. The high level of demand in spaces,
allowed real estate tax benefits, and the unusual aggressive
profit seeking business and social environment resulted from
deregulations in 1980s have created many of these developers.
Since the motive is also purely profit seeking as that of
syndicator, the negative impact are also very severe.
Among the developers interviewed for this study, two
out of the three local developers offer positive comments
about design review, except when it comes to the costs of
dealing with design review. While all three of the national
developers interviewed used to team up with New York-based
architects, and claimed that they do not oppose the idea of
design review, they constantly make very negative comments
about the process of design review. The design review process
seems to trouble local developers less.
It is very easy to
perceive that local developers may have more understanding of
the community and are apt to set up a good long-term
relationship with the residents.
59
In the 125 High Street project, the developer voluntarily
created activities for the community and also encouraged
community activity in the public space of the building.
"We have a large atrium in the middle of our project.
. which can be used for fund raising groups and the
American Cancer Society or whoever... We are in the
process of getting groups to use our atrium."
This evidence of good will may be one of the reasons why the
project took less time and less trouble during the review
process.
Strategy 4: Carefully select and manage members to ensure a
well-balanced project team, including public relations
consultants, to help handle all foreseeable issues for each
project.
Today, the role of developer has become ever more
complex and the considerations of each development project
cover a wide range of internal as well as external issues.
Development activities must be recognized as team efforts not
only to complete a specific project but also to mold our
environment. Developers act as team leaders who must have
adequate knowledge of all related disciplines, direct all
their consultants,
and carefully manage the proper use of
these consultants over the course of time. Developers must
know how to act and speak in different fields. They not only
need to be able to read engineering reports and architectural
drawings but also need to understand the financial and the
legal consequences of a variety of different regulations. Most
important of all, a developer must further acknowledge his or
her own weaknesses and select a well-balanced team to
compensate for them.
Some developers believe that hiring a nationally
famous architect can reduce the time and costs of design
review. However, many recent examples have proven otherwise.
In Boston's International Place and 500 Boylston Street
projects, the famed Philip Johnson did not help to smooth the
process of design review. He "got crossway with the Boston
Society of Architects."[7]
The result are,
International
Place was delayed three years and 500 Boylston Street was
delayed two years. Many developers are now hiring talented
local architects who are more familiar with the local review
process, understand the community's concerns, and have more
layers of relationships in the community. Mr. David McGarry
explained the selection of an architect for the 125 High
Street project:
"We want to hire a Boston architect because we are
building a Boston building .
. . and they are familiar
with going through the review process."
In
San Francisco,
it
is
said that you need a nationally "name"
architect in order to win the "beauty contest",
however.
The
actual result seem to suggest that local architects are doing
much better than national architects.
The public relations consultant interviewed also
emphasized the importance of selecting local architects to
handle design review:
7.
Interview with Mr.
Tom Owens.
61
"Very often, understanding the context is really the
issue.
.
.
.
a designer with a solid local presence
will be a better choice."[8]
Developers also have to decide whether a public
relations consultant is necessary. In many development
projects, public relations consultants not only help to
identify the interest groups but also advise and assist in the
process of communication. Most important, these consultants
help to soften the unfortunate image of developers and their
practices. In traditional development practices, lawyers have
been heavily relied upon for the process of negotiation and
communication with other groups. This practice is reasonable
and still necessary in some negotiations with financial
sponsors,
landowners,
architects,
or contractors.
However,
the
process of design review is a collective effort in the public
realm to create a better environment and community. It is not
a process of identifying or deciding who has the legal right
to build. In dealing with the general public, the strong
presence of lawyers may evoke unnecessary hostility and
distrust from communities. This response may make it more
difficult to obtain helpful specific guidelines from the
review board and other interest groups. Public relations
consultants may prove to be more helpful than lawyers for this
reason.
8.
Interview with Ms. Carole Pelletier.
62
V
Conclusion
Design review outside of historic districts is a new
concept with wide-ranging consequences for development
activities. Because its implementation is still relatively
new, it is still sometimes fraught with costly ambiguities and
inconsistencies, and its quality often still needs to be
improved. Developers, architects, communities, and planning
officials are all in the process of adjusting themselves to
this new concept and practice. While it is too early to
understand all the possible impacts of design review in the
United States, it is tempting draw comparisons with the
housing and commercial space markets in European countries,
where a very high degree of aesthetic control exists.
One
could conclude that the high cost of housing, the required
extraordinarily long term leases, high architects' fees, and
annual upward adjustment of rents are in part consequences of
implementing a high degree aesthetic control. These conditions
are generally not observed in countries where such aesthetic
control is absent.
For many developers, the transition from 'as-of-right
development' to 'development by neighborhood approval' is a
large distance to leap as well as a novel experience to
master. A developer should view his or her business as though
each individual project must contribute to improving the
living environment and add value to the community, as a
condition of the developer's own financial reward.
Communities and their review boards, for their part,
should recognize that the developer is an agent capable of
providing the desired physical image and living environment
for them. It is in the community's best interest to direct and
guide development activity instead of trying to limit or
reduce such activity. Communities also have to understand that
imposing excess or unreasonable financial burdens on
developers means that society as a whole will subsequently pay
for those burdens.
My conclusions from my interviews with developers
support these generalizations. Design review can help to
improve the architectural quality of development projects.
Indirectly, it can also help to select and limit the
participants in development activity and make real estate
development a more specialized profession requiring social and
environmental consciousness. The cost impact of design review
is still impossible to be measure exactly, It is real,
however. Because this cost impact, design review has helped to
change the practice and culture of the development industry.
Maybe it is maybe a worth paying.
The irony is that despite the support for design
review communities have not yet acted to decisively encourage
or compensate good design. To achieve a better living
environment requires an active and collective effort from
64
developers as well as communities. Communities are not acting
responsibly for the public good when they are purely negative,
believing that they have the right to force developers to
spend unlimited amount of money without developer's concerns.
In Boston's financial district, for example, most of the
buildings which have been through design review have vacancy
rates of 15.32% compared with a 12.42% vacancy rate in those
hated modern buildings built in the 1960s and '70s. In
Boston's North Station the area the contrast is even greater:
vacancy rates of 11.68% compare with 4.68%.[1] The
differences are too big to be simply explained by the lease
terms. It may also be argued that the differences in rents
create such a big contrast in vacancy rates. But rents are the
result of costs. Many developers who have spent a great deal
of money in meeting the community's demands in design review
are now wondering whether their effort was worth the return.
People who have demanded good buildings so loudly from
developers for good buildings are now turning their backs and
filling those ugly modern buildings.
Some communities and design review experts do not even
consider or examine the possibility of inviting developers to
sit on review boards,
citing the possible conflicts of
interest. But isn't it true that the community members, who
1. Spaulding and Slye Boston Office Vacancy Report, (Burlington:
Spaulding and Slye Co, 1990).
65
usually have less training in design, also sit on the board
judging design to guard their own interests?
It is curious how little each communities know about
development activity or attempts to understand it. From the
practice of design review so far, it appears that communities
are only capable of thinking negatively about development,
without understanding that development efforts are the major
force which has built the community we want to protect.
It may take another generation for developers to
completely adjust themselves to the idea of design review and
an even longer time for communities and bureaucrats to conduct
design reviews in a more efficient standardized way. The
climate for developers will still remain difficult and stormy
until most design review systems can be improved and a sounder
design guidelines established. To help hasten that day,
developers must, for their part
1. Clearly understand the nature and goal of the design
review practice in a given locality;
2. Set up early interaction and communication with design
review boards and powerful interest groups to establish
clearer guidelines and criteria;
3. Learn to be a local developer, by becoming more actively
involved with community activities;
4. Carefully select members of a well-balanced project
team, including public relations consultants, to help
handle all possible issues for each project.
66
Bibliography
of Architects,
The American Institute
Handbook for Communities, 1974.
Design Review Books: A
Carl Lindbloom, Environmental Design Review, 1970.
Christopher J. Duerksen, Aesthetic and Land-Use Controls,
1991.
Jeanneret-Gris & Charles Edouard, When the Cathedrals were
White, 1964.
J. Christopher Lang, Building Nantucket in Mind,1978.
J. Mark Davidson Schuster, Design Review: The View From the
Architecture Profession, 1990.
John Delafons, Aesthetic Control, 1990.
John J. Costonis, Icons and Aliens,
1989.
Journal of Real Estate Development, Vol.4, No.4, 1989.
Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics. 1989.
Manfredo/Francesco Dal Co, Modern Architecture, 1986.
Planning, May 1987.
Richard Bender and Todd Bressi, Design Review, A Review of
Process, Procedures, and Potential, 1989.
Rick W. Williams, Report on Design Review Committees, 1990.
Robert Venturi, denise Scott Brown, and Steven Izenour,
Learning from Las Vegas, 1972.
Spiro Kostof, A History of Architecture, 1977.
Tom Wofle,
From Bauhaus to Our House,
Town Planning Review,
Vol.54,
1983.
Town Planning Review,
Vol.57,
1987.
Town Planning Review,
Vol.58,
1987.
1981.